STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10 ... - LawMemo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

equires overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (2006). The rules implementing the MFLSA designate the “workweek” as “[t]he period of time used for determining compliance with” the overtime requirements of the MFLSA. Minn. R. 5200.0170, subp. 1 (2009). The “workweek” in turn is defined as “a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours, seven consecutive 24-hour periods,” presumptively the calendar week. Id. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing appellants‟ statutory overtime claim because appellants could not demonstrate that their compensation fell below the amount required by the MFLSA. The district court determined that appellants‟ compensation—which included overtime compensation for (undisputed) hours worked in excess of 40 as required by the FLSA—so significantly exceeded the compensation required under the MFLSA that, even when the disputed donning and doffing time was included in the calculation, the appellants‟ compensation exceeded that required by the MFLSA. The district court properly viewed the facts in the light most favorable to appellants in reaching this determination. Appellants assert that the district court erred by employing a “workweek averaging” rule in relation to their overtime claim. Although the district court‟s determination of Jennie-O‟s overtime compliance relied upon the construct of a workweek—as is directed by rule 5200.0170—and referred to workweek averaging, the court did not actually engage in any “averaging.” Rather, the district court compared the amount of compensation that appellants actually received with the amount to which they 6
were entitled under the MFLSA, and, because the former was greater than the latter, determined that their overtime claim failed as a matter of law. Appellants also suggest that the district court‟s analysis improperly creates an “FLSA offset” for determining damages under the MFLSA. To the contrary, appellants are attempting to import the requirements of the FLSA into the determination of whether there has been a violation of the MFLSA. As we noted above, the FLSA is the more restrictive statute, requiring overtime compensation for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Thus, employees who work more than 40 hours in a workweek, but fewer than 48 hours, may have a claim under the FLSA but not under the MFLSA. Nothing in the MFLSA compels or allows courts to take into account compensation paid or due under the FLSA in determining whether there has been a violation of the MFLSA. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment on appellants‟ statutory overtime claim. The district court properly analyzed appellants‟ statutory overtime claim by comparing the amount due under the MFLSA to the amounts actually received by appellants. And because appellants cannot demonstrate that they were paid less than the MFLSA required, the district court properly dismissed the statutory overtime claim. B. With respect to meal breaks, the MFLSA provides: “An employer must permit each employee who is working for eight or more consecutive hours sufficient time to eat a meal.” Minn. Stat. § 177.254, subd. 1 (2010). The statute does not, however, “require[] the employer to pay the employee during the meal break.” Id., subd. 2 (2010). 7
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPE
Page 3 and 4: Respondent Jennie-O Turkey Store, I
Page 5: I. Appellants challenge the dismiss
Page 9 and 10: II. Appellants challenge the dismis
Page 11 and 12: Restatement also recognizes, howeve
Page 13 and 14: claim was not asserted as a count i
Page 15: violations was introduced at trial.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10 ... - LawMemo

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?